(Informal 1-2 line summaries, which certainly should not be relied upon for legal or other research purposes)
-
- CAFC affirms Alice 101 JMOL invalidity (not 12b6?) for claims "generally directed to methods [and
systems] for content sharing using uniquely generated
identifiers." CAFC agrees with the DCT's characterization that the claims are directed to "the abstract idea of “sharing content using a unique identifier”" ("The use of location or proximity
information merely limits when or with whom content is
shared, which does not render the claims any less abstract,
but instead reflects the application of an abstract idea
using generic networking components operating in their
conventional manner."). As for Step 2, CAFC likewise agrees with the DCT ("The asserted reliance on location information and a purported “hybrid architecture,” Q Tech Op. Br. 51, does not
transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject
matter, as the claims do not recite any nonconventional implementation or improvement in computer functionality itself."). Ergo, affirmed.
-
- CAFC affirms this noninfringement decision, first agreeing with the construction ("We reject Little Giant’s invitation to rewrite the construction, because the district court adopted the parties’
“essentially agreed-upon” construction of the claimed “cavity” as a “hollowed-out space (not passing all the way
through) . . . neither the examiner’s
statement, the claims, nor the specification support Little
Giant’s assertion"), then agreeing with the DCT's expert exclusion ("Mr. Smith contradicted the court’s construction by “essentially reconstru[ing] the cavity limitation to mean any hollowed-out space that does not pass through in every direction.”"), and also agreeing with the DCT's DOE preclusion analysis:
"[T]he examiner
rejected the claim language . . . over a prior art reference . . . In response, the applicant amended claim 1 to recite “the first
bracket is disposed within a cavity defined by the first component” . . . In
view of this narrowing amendment, we agree with the district court that the surrendered territory is between “designs where the bracket is concealed between the handle
and the rails” and “where it is disposed within a cavity of
the handle” . . . the [allegedly infringing device's] handle’s wing space
does fall within this surrendered territory because there
“the majority of the bracket is concealed between the handle and the rail simply because that concealment occurs by
placing substantial portions of the bracket inside a space
that is not a cavity.”"
Ergo, affirmed.
-
- CAFC affirms this patent matter against the manufacturer of the Ingenuity Martian Helicopter who asserted immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 ("AeroVironment argued it had developed
Ingenuity for the government pursuant to its subcontracts
with JPL and that the government had expressly authorized and consented to any activity that happened to infringe the ’763 patent. Therefore, any suit for patent
infringement had to be brought by the Arltons against the
government, not AeroVironment, in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, not district court"). CAFC likewise affirms that televised demonstration of the earth-based counterpart helicopter “Terry” did not vitiate the defense (“We have previously indicated that, when a defendant “received no commercial profit” and used infringing devices “solely for purposes of display” when demonstrating work performed on behalf of the government, it has not engaged in commercial conduct that would vitiate a § 1498 defense . . . The record is devoid of any evidence that AeroVironment offered Terry for sale to anyone.”). However, on the other side, CAFC also affirms the denial of attorneys fees ("The district court found
this case was not “cut and dried” and that the Arltons did
not “ma[k]e frivolous arguments in opposing summary
judgment.”"). Ergo, affirmed en toto.
-
- CAFC affirms 103 invalidity in this IPR involving "Aerial
Roof Estimation Systems and Methods." Here, Owner "argues that the Board erred by construing
“calculate a pitch” and “determining a pitch” as encompassing inaccurate or unreliable calculations." Assuming the arguments were preserved, CAFC disagrees on both counts. Regarding the latter:
"The specification confirms that the term “determining” allows for estimations . . (indicating that “determin[ing] the dimensions and slopes of the
roof sections” may be based on “closely estimat[ing] the dimensions and slopes of the roofs”). Moreover, embodiments
in the specification describe “accurately determin[ing] the
pitch,” indicating that accuracy is not built into the meaning of “determining” . . . Accordingly, Eagle View’s argument that the term “determine” excludes approximation, estimation, or “near calculation” lacks merit."
As for the former:
"[W]e find no evidence in the specification to suggest
that “calculate” requires a certain level of accuracy. Instead, the specification indicates that the term “calculate”
refers to obtaining a result via the performance of mathematical steps . . . (“The slope can
be easily calculated from such a representation using basic
trigonometry.”). "
Ergo, after briefly considering challenges to the petition and motivation to combine, CAFC affirms.
-
- In this precedential design patent matter involving a massage device, while the design patent's figures and device look awfully similar, the DCT "concluded that “many,
but not all, of the design features in the D’155 patent—
which the Rolflex embodied—are driven by function . . . the overall . . . scope of the claim is accordingly narrow.”" Here, plaintiff consequently argues that "the district court erred in its claim
construction analysis by eliminating entire structural elements from the claimed design", but CAFC applies the Egyptian Goddess analysis and agrees with the DCT (e.g., "“[w]here a
design contains both functional and non-functional elements, the scope of the claim must be construed in order to
identify the non-functional aspects of the design as shown
in the patent.”"). CAFC reviews the DCT's analysis and agrees that "the “clamshell”
shape of the arms was functional, but that other features
“appear to be largely ornamental,” such as “the thick ridged
outline” of the design (which includes the arms)" (n.b., this result despite "the drawings in the D’155 patent depicting the claimed design in solid line."). An important note for drafters:
RoM’s position that these lines
show what aspects are functional and what aspects are ornamental suggests, however, that all design elements must
be either completely ornamental or completely functional. Our case law does not support this proposition. . . . as the district court correctly recognized,
RoM’s proposed approach of treating the D’155 patent’s disclaimer of elements as dispositive of the functionality inquiry would have courts blindly accept that “every feature depicted in solid lines in design patents [is] per se ornamental.”
Judge Moore dissents, however ("I think the district court erred
when it took this question away from the jury and granted
summary judgement of noninfringement"), generally considering Egyptian Goddess too far a departure from Gorham and its focus upon "the effect of the whole design" rather than individual features ("The former causes the fact finder to focus on the
similarity of the overall designs whereas the latter forces
the fact finder to focus on the difference").
James Skelley is a solo practitioner based in Mountain View, California since 2015, focusing primarily upon technology transactions and intellectual property procurement. James' practice also serves as an "incubator" for new legal service technologies / methodologies and a "living example" of their application. To this end, James regularly partners with larger law firms and with his clients so as to improve the practice of intellectual property law.
- Utility / Design / PCT Patent Prosecution
- Open Source Diligence
- Technology Transactions (typically as a team)
- Litigation / Inter Partes Review Support (typically as a team)
- James tends NOT to handle low-volume trademark work (though referrals are available)
- USPTO - #59458 - 10/16/2006
- California - #257829 - 12/01/2008
- District Columbia - #1014986 - 08/05/2013
- James is available by email, 8x8 hangout, and in-person meetups in the Valley.
- Email is typically the best way to reach James.
- Machine Learning / Robotics
- Cryptograpy / Cryptocurrency / Smart Contracts
- Medical Device
- Computational Biology (primarily modeling and proteomics)
- Signal Processing (primarily wireless and compression)
- Quantum Physics (primarily semiconductor) / Electromagnetics (antennae, waveguides, etc.)
- Manufacturing / 3D Printing
- James tends NOT to handle pure chemistry applications (though referrals are available), however James HAS handled matters involving computational proteomics, cellular modeling, and diagnostic lab protocols
LawMux Bites are (very) short, one-page summaries of various legal concepts, cases, and technologies. As informal summaries, you certainly shouldn't rely upon them as legal advice / for business use, but they can help orient you if you're new to the subject matter.
